Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:36:13 -0600
From: Vincent Danen <vdanen@...hat.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: coley <coley@...re.org>
Subject: Re: Minor security flaw with pam_xauth
* [2010-09-24 20:48:23 +0400] Solar Designer wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 04:02:47PM -0400, Josh Bressers wrote:
>> Since you have the best understanding of these, can you break them down
>> with reasonable explanations and I'll assign IDs to whatever still needs
>> them?
>
>pam_xauth missing return value checks from setuid() and similar calls,
>fixed in Linux-PAM 1.1.2 - CVE-2010-3316
>
>pam_env and pam_mail accessing the target user's files as root (and thus
>susceptible to attacks by the user) in Linux-PAM below 1.1.2, partially
>fixed in 1.1.2 - no CVE ID mentioned yet
>
>pam_env and pam_mail in Linux-PAM 1.1.2 not switching fsgid (or egid)
>and groups when accessing the target user's files (and thus potentially
>susceptible to attacks by the user) - CVE-2010-3430
>
>pam_env and pam_mail in Linux-PAM 1.1.2 not checking whether the
>setfsuid() calls succeed (no known impact with current Linux kernels,
>but poor practice in general) - CVE-2010-3431
>
>Now, in case someone fixes CVE-2010-3430 but fails to add return value
>checks for the added calls, we'll need yet another CVE ID for the
>partial fix... but I hope this won't happen.
These that are partially fixed are fixed in that git commit you noted
previously?
http://git.altlinux.org/people/ldv/packages/?p=pam.git;a=commitdiff;h=06f882f30092a39a1db867c9744b2ca8d60e4ad6
Or are they fixed in different commits? It looks like they should all
be fixed in that commit, but I want to double-check.
Are there patches available to fully fix these issues? And are there
patches for 3430 and 3431 yet? I'm assuming also that those issues have
always existed although you say 'in 1.1.2', but they would affect
earlier versions yet, right?
Thanks for any clarification. I'm trying to wrap my head around this
and the impact of these issues. They all strike me as relatively minor
issues, but it is possible that I am missing or misunderstanding
something here.
--
Vincent Danen / Red Hat Security Response Team